Offensive realism, base of foreign policy from the U.S. to Latin America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51378/eca.v72i750.3257Keywords:
International relations theories, Domestic and international policy, Interventionism, Democracy, Self-determination, HegemonyAbstract
This article will demonstrate that the theory of international relations known as “offensive realism” best explains U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America. It will be shown that, rhetorically speaking, the U.S. has always presented itself as a champion of liberalism (the counterpart to realism), but that, in the practice of its international relations, particularly toward Latin America, it has acted in accordance with the tenets of realism. The evidence presented in this article will confirm that, while the U.S. publicly supports respect for the rule of law (the theoretical foundation of liberalism), in practice it has always acted contrary to this, resorting to its power, in all its forms, to assert its dominance (the theoretical foundation of realism).
0
References
Adam, E. P. (1980). Chronology 1980. Foreign Affairs, 59(3), 714-742.
Armstrong, D., Farrel, T. & Lambert, H. (2007). International Law and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, P. (2017). U. S. Navy Opens New Era with Commissioning of Gerald R. Ford. The New York Times, 22 de julio de 2017. Recuperado de https://www.nytimes.com/20 17/07122/us/politics/ford-c1assaircraft-carrier-commissioning.html
Baker, R. S. (1960). Woodrow Wi/son and World Settlement. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company.
Barkin, J. S. (2010). Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baylis, J. & Smith, S. (Eds.). (1997). The Globalization 01 World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brands, H. W. (1998). What America Owes the World: The Struggle for the Soul 01 Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CRS Report for Congress, "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 17982001", Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Order Code RL30172, Congressional Research Service, The
Library of Congress.
Devetak, R., Burke, A. & George, J. (Eds.). (2007). An Introduction to International Relations: Australian Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, G. & Newnham, J. (1998). Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. Londres: Penguin Books.
Gallarotti, G. M. (2010). Cosmopolitan Power in International Relations: A Synthesis 01 Realism, Neoliberalism, and Constructivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, A. S. (2005). Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum American Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoff, J. (2008). Faustian Foreign Policy: From Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush-Dreams of Perfectibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, M. H. (2004). Ideology. En Hagan, M. J. & Paterson, T. G. (2004). (Eds.). Explaining the History 01 American Foreign Re/ations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Isacoff, J. B. & Widmaier, W. W. (2003). Systemic Interpretations and the National Interests: Presidential 'Lessons of Vietnam' and Policy Deliberations. International Relations, 17(175).
Jervis, R. (1976). Perceptions and Misperceptions in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kegley, Jr., Charles, W. & Wittkopf, E. R. (1999). World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Nueva York: Worth
Publishers.
Kitchen, N. (2010). Svstemic pressures and domestic ideas: a neoclassical realist model of grand strategy formation. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 117-143.
Kubálková, V, Onuf, N. & Kowert, P. (Eds). (1998). International Relations in a Constructed World. Nueva York: M. E. Sharpe.
LeoGrande, W. M. (1998). Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Linowitz, S. M. (1989). Latin America: The President's Agenda. Foreign Affairs, 67(2).
Little, R. (2007). The Balance 01 Power in lntemational Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M. & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.). (2009). Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lodge, H. C. (1925). The Senate and the League 01 Nations. Nueva York: Charles Scribner's Sonso
McPherson, A. (Ed.). (2013). Encyclopedia of U. S. Military Interventions in Latin America, vols. 1 y 2. Santa Barbara:
ABC-CLIO.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Polities. Nueva York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Nieto, C. (2003). Masters o/ War: Latin America and U. S. Aggression-From the Cuban Revolution through the Clinton Years. Nueva York: Seven Stories Press.
Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (1980-1981). Chronology December 1980-February 1981. Pakistan Horizons, 34(1), 140-196.
Robertson, D. (1993). The Penguin Dictionary of Politics. Londres: Penguin Books.
Romanova, T. (2012). Neoclassical Realism and Today's Russia. Russia in Global Affairs, 3.
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51 (l), 144-172.
Scheller, R. L. (2007). Neorealism's statusquo bias: What security dilemma? Security Studies, 5(3),90-121.
Schoenbaum, T. J. (2006). International Relations: The Path Not Taken-Using International Law to Promote World Peace and Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selser, G. (1994). Cronología de las intervenciones extranjeras en América Latina. Tomo 1, 1776-1848. México, D. E: Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de México.
Selser, G. (1997). Cronología de las intervenciones extranjeras en América Latina. Tomo II, 1849-1898. México, D. E: Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de México.
Selser, G. (2001). Cronología de las intervenciones extranjeras en América Latina. Tomo III, 1899-1945. México, D. E: Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de México.
Selser, G. (2009). Cronología de las intervenciones extranjeras en América Latina. Tomo IV, 1946-1990. México, D. E: Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de México.
Sinclair, A. (2010). International Relations Theory and Intemational Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, K. E. & Light, M. (Eds). (2001). Ethics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, S., Hadfield, A. & Dunne, T. (Eds.). (2012). Foreign Policy: Theories-ActorsCases. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, J. (2004). One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy, 145,52-62.
Vincent, R. J. (Ed.). (1986). Foreign Policy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© ECA. Estudios Centroamericanos está bajo una licencia Creative Commons NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
La licencia no comercial y sin obra derivada permite la reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, pero no la posibilidad de comercializar su contenido ni tampoco generar una obra derivada, como una traducción o adaptación, excepto que se pida permiso a los editores de dicha obra.
En ese sentido, se está en la libertad de:
Compartir: copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato.
Bajo las siguientes condiciones:
- Reconocimiento: se debe dar crédito a esta obra de manera adecuada, proporcionando un enlace a la licencia, e indicando si se han realizado cambios.
- Uso no comercial: no se puede hacer uso del material con fines comerciales.
- Sin obra derivada: si se remezcla, transforma o construye sobre ese material, no se puede distribuir el material modificado.
